2020 (1) TMI 1590 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - seeking opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim before the original authorities by taking a lenient view - HELD THAT - As per the order in ABISHEK MUNDHRA VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION-AIR) , O/O. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS COMMISSIONARATE, CHENNAI 1 (AIRPORT) , NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 2019 (8) TMI 1823 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , came to be disposed of on 19.08.2019, the respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy. However, due to filing of the present writ petition, the respondent has been unable to take up the proceedings. It is to be noted that by order dated 19.08.2019 in W.P.No.10816 of 2015, the impugned order dated 17/02/2015 has been set aside and the case has been remanded back for fresh consideration. Similar order is passed in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in terms of the above order. The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to impugned order by Joint Commissioner of Customs, remand for fresh consideration, delay in proceedings, direction to pass appropriate orders within three months, permission to file additional representation.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Impugned Order: The petitioner challenged the impugned order originally passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs. The main noticee had also challenged the same order in a previous writ petition, which was disposed of with the observation that granting an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim before the original authorities would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the order in original dated 17.02.2015 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was given liberty to file objections within 30 days, and the respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the objections expeditiously within three months.

2. Remand for Fresh Consideration: Due to the filing of the present writ petition, the respondent was unable to take up the proceedings within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17/02/2015 was set aside, and the case was remanded back for fresh consideration by an order dated 19.08.2019 in a related writ petition.

3. Delay in Proceedings: Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was inclined to pass a similar order in the present writ petition. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the order in the related writ petition dated 19.08.2019. The respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner was permitted to file additional representation if needed, and it was mandated that the petitioner appear in person before the respondent before the orders were passed.

4. Direction to Pass Appropriate Orders: The Court directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The respondent was also instructed to allow the petitioner to file any additional representation deemed necessary. Furthermore, it was made mandatory for the petitioner to appear in person before the respondent before the final orders were issued.

5. Permission to File Additional Representation: The respondent was directed to permit the petitioner to file any additional representation before the final orders were passed. This step was crucial to ensure that all relevant information and arguments were considered before the final decision was made.

6. Costs: The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were to be incurred in this matter, indicating that the parties involved were not burdened with any additional financial obligations related to the legal proceedings.